19:00:26 <laanwj> #startmeeting 
19:00:26 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Dec  8 19:00:26 2022 UTC.  The chair is laanwj. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings.
19:00:26 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
19:00:46 <achow101> hi
19:00:48 <instagibbs> hi
19:00:51 <josie[m]> hi
19:00:53 <CoinForensics> hi
19:00:57 <laanwj> hi, welcome to the weekly bitcoin-core-dev meeting… this is the first time doing this via matrix, so i hope it's working
19:01:06 <brunoerg> hi
19:01:11 <ariard> hi
19:01:11 <hebasto> hi
19:01:12 <halosghost> laanwj: (seems to be ☺)
19:01:12 <laanwj> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 aj amiti ariard b10c BlueMatt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 darosior digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb glozow gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jarolrod jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral laanwj larryruane lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd
19:01:12 <laanwj> phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild
19:01:37 <kanzure> hi
19:01:49 <LarryRuane> hi
19:01:50 <_aj_> hi
19:01:57 <furszy> hi
19:02:07 <laanwj> it doesn't look like any topics have been proposed in advance through #proposedmeetingtopic
19:02:14 <laanwj> any last minute ones?
19:02:25 <_aj_> laanwj: i did one the other week
19:02:32 <jonatack1> hi
19:02:35 <instagibbs> thought I did too one sec
19:02:38 <kanzure> there may have been one or two days of gnusha logbot being offline
19:02:44 <kanzure> apologies
19:03:03 <achow101> There was one from last week that got punted
19:03:05 <instagibbs> #26398 revisiting discussion to see path forward if any
19:03:06 <kanzure> (usually it's a re-connect issue and i don't notice until someone pings me)
19:03:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26398 | Replace MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE to preclude 64 non-witness bytes only by instagibbs · Pull Request #26398 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:03:28 <laanwj> _aj_: can you please repeat it? or someone else? i don't have logs or very good search functionality so was relying on kanzure
19:03:41 <_aj_> #proposedmeetingtopic concept/wip/review/rfm project board (#26556)
19:03:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26556 | [meta] Distinguish concept/wip/review/rfm for active/high-priority PRs? · Issue #26556 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:03:58 <laanwj> thanks
19:04:20 <laanwj> let's start with high priority for review
19:04:27 <laanwj> #topic High priority for review
19:04:27 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review
19:04:55 <laanwj> 7 blockers, 3 chasing conept in https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1/views/1
19:05:07 <laanwj> anything to add/remove?
19:07:51 <laanwj> if not, let's move to aj's topic
19:07:55 <fjahr> hi
19:08:09 <laanwj> #topic oncept/wip/review/rfm project board  (aj)
19:08:09 <core-meetingbot> topic: oncept/wip/review/rfm project board  (aj)
19:09:47 <_aj_> so pretty much what's in the issue (#26556) -- i'd find it helpful to be able to tell whether people are looking for general feedback on prs, or if they're in a "final"-ish state where they're just looking for bugs and acks
19:09:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26556 | [meta] Distinguish concept/wip/review/rfm for active/high-priority PRs? · Issue #26556 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:10:22 <_aj_> and it seems like you can do that pretty nicely with the way the modern project boards work; so i wonder if other people would be interested in trying something like that out
19:11:55 <josie[m]> i would definitely be interested in trying that out.
19:12:09 <instagibbs> getting a couple volunteers to religiously use it is probably good next step
19:12:26 <lightlike> who would make the judgement calls to move things between the categories?
19:13:05 <laanwj> no objections from me, i don't see why there would be, though we've had similar initiatives in the past and it's not entirely clear to me it wlil be maintained actively (it's why we have only specific boards for specific projects someone has an interest in)
19:13:08 <_aj_> i was thinking that mostly PR authors could do that (if they're members of the org, anyway)
19:13:56 <josie[m]> lightlike: authors, i would think. but other reviewers could likely recommend that something move if they feel it needs to
19:15:21 <josie[m]> im not sure if this is the envisioned use, but i would love to use this for facilitating more design review before opening a concrete implementation
19:16:31 <fjahr> Can issues also get on the board or only PRs?
19:17:02 <fjahr> If issues are possible as well then that should work to do that as well with a board
19:17:16 <achow101> _aj_: would you be willing to setup the project views, etc.?
19:17:26 <_aj_> the categories (seeking concept ack / initial review / detailed review / ready for merge) seem more applicable to PRs than issues; but technically issues would work too
19:17:39 <_aj_> achow101: sure
19:18:21 <sipa> hi
19:18:40 <fjahr> Maybe there could be a high prio brainstorming column, but not sure if that is a good idea...
19:19:20 <lightlike> this removes the "blocker" notion that is currently still part of the high-prio board, right? So it'll be ok to have things as high-prio even if they don't block any future work.
19:19:49 <achow101> https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/5 is setup so any frequent contributors can write
19:20:08 <ariard> on the "concept ack" i think it could be understood in a larger meaning, in the sense seeking concept ack beyond the Core project boundaries, especially for things like mempool policy rules
19:20:10 <_aj_> lightlike: i'm roughly thinking of it as "this is the pr i'm most actively working on"
19:22:42 <fjahr> _aj_ +1 I think most people interpret it as "blocking me from focussing on the next big thing, I want to get this done soon"
19:24:20 <laanwj> so it looks like no one has any objections, let's do it
19:24:33 <lightlike> yes, seems like a good idea to try this out
19:24:35 <fanquake> is the main point of the new effort mostly just increased visibility?
19:25:18 <fanquake> obviously for the last few years, a PRs existence in the high prio board has made no material difference to how much (extra) review it actually gets
19:26:26 <laanwj> that's hard to measure :)
19:26:52 <lightlike> I wouldn't agree, several people have told me that they sometimes use the board to find things to review. I definitely have as well.
19:27:22 <jonatack1> i used the board these past few years.
19:27:35 <fanquake> heh. mostly judging based on the duration that PRs remain in the board / get dropped out. Personally I have a number that receive 0 attention despite being in the board. Obviously dependant on the change as well.
19:28:29 <fanquake> just trying to get a better understanding of the hopeful outcome. If it leads to increased focus / throughput for certain projects, that’d be great
19:29:32 <laanwj> yeah…it's just very hard to drum up (review) attention for things it's been always that way, but if people get involved in this new project board it might help a bit
19:30:23 <fjahr> I have used the board as well. I think the high prios are often much more complex than the average PR and I feel like in some cases it has helped my PRs to be on there.
19:30:44 <fanquake> Ultimately the problem is still very limited number of reviewers, with limited time. However if we can help them prioritise somehow, that is also useful
19:31:44 <fanquake> and yes, given that high priority changes are generally complex, or harder to review, that constraints the group of reviewers even further
19:31:55 <jonatack1> no opinion on adding a board, other than try and see, i guess. yes, the high prio board sometimes has PRs that are more difficult, longer or critical to review, which might be intimidating
19:32:09 <jonatack1> fanquake: right
19:32:37 <fanquake> In any case. Let’s give it a go
19:33:30 <_aj_> fanquake: i get confused by: which PRs people actually care about when they have many open; whether PRs are looking for broad review or just want to get ACKs to get merged; whether it's worth putting "easy" things on high-pri, or when it's worth pinging maintainers/reviewers to look at things; i'm hoping some of those might be improved
19:36:00 <fanquake> _aj_: yea, that sounds worthwhile. I have recently been trying to enact that in some way, by marking more PRs as drafts, to at least try and push review attention to dependant PRs etc. More triage / organisation will likely also help there
19:38:09 <jonatack1> would it be helpful to add a link to the board(s) when joining this irc channel, a la "please see *url(s)* for review"
19:40:07 <laanwj> a good idea but i don't think the topic can be any longer
19:43:41 <laanwj> it's always a good question, how to get attention to something that is supposed to give attention, but could at least add a link to the appropriate documents ni the repo like REVIEWING.md
19:43:49 <laanwj> any other topics?
19:44:16 <lightlike> instagibbs suggested one above
19:44:59 <laanwj> #topic Replace MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE to preclude 64 non-witness bytes only (instagibbs)
19:44:59 <core-meetingbot> topic: Replace MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE to preclude 64 non-witness bytes only (instagibbs)
19:46:21 <instagibbs> I think all opinions have been given on the topic, whether restricting to <65 bytes or restricting 64 bytes exactly, I have preferences, but wondering what the path forward is
19:46:45 <instagibbs> _aj_, feelings on that?
19:48:09 <_aj_> nothing to add to what's already in the pr?
19:48:34 <instagibbs> Ok, so there's mild(?) disagreement on implemetnation cost, and I'm not sure what goes from here
19:48:35 <achow101> are there competing prs or is it just disagreement in one?
19:48:48 <instagibbs> #26265 was the alternative
19:48:51 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26265 | POLICY: Relax MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE to 65 non-witness bytes by instagibbs · Pull Request #26265 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:49:47 <instagibbs> most people(including me) seem to prefer the new one, but in my case it's a mild preference, and I'd rather something be done
19:50:18 <instagibbs> vs sit on two possibilities with no new data to be had
19:52:16 <instagibbs> if there's nothing to be done but languish, I guess that happens but I'd rather now. achow101 maybe take a look and give some sage advice?
19:52:29 <achow101> I don't see any NACKs
19:53:32 <instagibbs> _aj_, I guess I'm formally asking for a nack or I'll ask for merge, that ends the topic
19:53:36 <instagibbs> ?
19:53:39 <instagibbs> thanks
19:54:23 <_aj_> instagibbs: i don't really see how adding a nack is productive, but sure
19:55:01 <instagibbs> ok we can take this offline
19:55:21 <achow101> it's just not clear to my how strong the disagreement is
19:55:28 <instagibbs> ^
19:57:21 <instagibbs> I see lots of text that is opposing the underlying idea, I take it as an unknown strength nack
19:58:38 <instagibbs> 2 minutes if anyone wants to speak on anythign else
19:58:45 <_aj_> i guess i don't really think encouraging "strong" disagreement is really healthy
20:00:36 <jonatack1> i tend to prefer 26265 to not special-case, i think
20:02:03 <laanwj> it's time to wrap up the meeting
20:02:31 <instagibbs> ok, I'll just put some thoughts down on the PR on what I think the state is
20:02:36 <laanwj> we can continue this after, or pick up the topic again next week
20:04:51 <laanwj> #endmeeting